Mainstream economists define “inflation” as general increases in consumer and producer prices. Yet, such a definition misses why prices increase in the first place and why inflation should be described as an artificial increase in the money supply.
I have long argued that Austrian economics should be developed not as an alternative to the current academic discipline of economics but as a replacement for it.
Jonathan Newman appears on the show to discuss Bob's recent debate on ZeroHedge, which centered on Austrian economics versus Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).
In replying to a previous article by Frank Shostak, Douglas French writes that if an increase in the supply of gold ultimately leads to an expansion of bank credit, that is enough to start the boom-and-bust cycles, even if there is no central bank to accelerate the process.
Governments seem united in their drive to destroy sound money and replace it with worthless paper. As technologies advance, however, so does the ability of people to undermine government, and with it, the development of sound money.
American attempts to preserve its leadership status in the world will fail unless it enacts reforms which really are nothing more than behaving in a legal and honorable way.
While the US dollar still is the world‘s “reserve” currency, its abuse by the Federal Reserve and federal government has weakened it precipitously. While President-elect Trump recognizes the threats to the dollar, is he willing to do what needs to be done to change the situation?
Both Monetarists and Keynesians believe that a growing economy requires a growing money supply, thus, the Federal Reserve‘s “target” inflation rate of two percent. Austrian economists, however, understand that inflation at any level creates economic damage.
The Mises Institute is giving away copies of Murray Rothbard's classic, What Has Government Done to Our Money? and it will change how one sees our nation's monetary history. Rothbard presents a clear case for sound money as a basis for civilization itself.
A central doctrine of the Keynesian system is the “liquidity trap” in which consumers hold money in anticipation of higher interest rates. The act of holding money allegedly promotes “underconsumption,” continuing the economic downturn. This doctrine, however, cannot withstand scrutiny.
